Hume's Argument Of Skepticism

1.3 Hume’s argument for inductive scepticism in the Enquiry starts with a division of the things that we think about and a realization of the limitations of our perceptions.
All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of Fact.

Propositions of this (the first) kind are discoverable by the mere operation of thought, without dependence on what is anywhere existent in the universe.
(the second kind) are not ascertained in the same manner; nor is our evidence of their truth..(like the first).
It may, therefore, be a subject worthy of curiosity, to enquire what is the nature of that evidence which assures us of any real existence and matter of fact, beyond the present

testimony of our senses, or the records of our memory. -page 542

The point of Hume’s investigation, then, is to examine the foundation of all our beliefs about matters of fact which are not immediately accessible to our senses or memory. Hume argues that our beliefs about the workings of the external world are founded on inferences from things we observe to those which we have not, our view of the world and our ability to predict future events operates under the assumption that the things that we have observed will resemble the things we have not.
External world skepticism differs from Hume’s inductive skepticism in that it requires us to believe that you can’t know anything about the external world (or even if there is such a thing) – you can only know about the internal world of your own mind. The internal world consists of the contents of your own mind, like your thoughts, desires and sensations. Hume believes that the external world exists and can be counted upon, but that the future cannot be predicted. Compared to external world skepticism Hume seems like a prequel to the Matrix where everything is real now, but the robots might take over at any minute, and this possibility colors all of our actions.
As I have said, Hume shows us that there is no real reason to believe that things that will happen will have any resemblance to the past. So we are forbidden to speculate beyond what we have perceived and presently perceive, yet we continually make these kind of assumptions based on no reasonable ground. We are soon shown that these unjustifiable beliefs can be explained merely as a custom or habit. When something continually happens, we assume that it will continue to be the case. All of the custom in the world of course proves nothing but my expectation, but there it is.
Kant also questions how it is possible to have a priori knowledge. Kant solves this problem by saying that the things that we perceive objects within, namely space and time, are a priori and that our concept of causality comes from our understanding which requires these objective things. Once we apply pure concepts to the world, then we can have certainty, because our understanding comes from things we did not create (e.g. space, time).
Both of the solutions seem plausible, however, Kant’s solution seems to allow a greater amount of confidence. Both of these explanations of the world seem complete and frankly neither of them would seem to matter much to how we see the world. Whether you believed in your predictions based on habit or on the objectivity of time and space, both have their force and both could be questioned. We see many times at Wabash that the force of habit or tradition is the same as the force of external frameworks, so I see no greater confidence to be exuded by the adherents of either camp.

1.1 External world skepticism is the argument that we cannot trust the external world, or even know that there is such a thing, according to the strongest skeptics you can only know about the internal world of your own mind.
Montaigne says that because of the many ways that our senses fail us, e.g. heights, there is no way that we can have confidence in the external world. If we are to have confidence, it must rest in a objective magistrate, and since our confidence in such a thing must be based upon assumptions, we are cast backwards until we have nothing to rest upon.
Descartes lays out The First Meditation’s argument for skepticism by reflecting that he has often found himself to be incorrect in thinking about things he thought were true, and so we are resolved to sweep away all preconceptions and rebuild our knowledge from nothing, accepting as true only those claims which are absolutely certain.

Descartes sees the flaws in believing his senses and decides against them completely. At any moment any of us could be dreaming, or our senses might be corrupted by a demon, so he concludes that senses are not to be trusted.
The objection to Montaigne that Descartes makes in his First Meditation, is that there are some senses which are so clear, that to deny them would be to be like the insane man who thinks he is rich when he is poor, clothed when he is naked.
This is a serious objection, but it does not even hold up when we look at the evil demon argument of Descartes, when a demon may be deceiving us all of the time, how can we trust anything. In many ways, their arguments are very much the same, until they get so close to the source of perception. Montaigne, unlike Descartes, would say that our ideas of the external world are so colored by our own fallible perceptions, that not even the closest things to us can be had with any great confidence. One could argue that the human subjective perception allows for some confidence, but only if we allow our perceptions to be solely

subjective.
Descartes argument eventually rests upon the idea of a benevolent God ensuring our thoughts, we can work forward from god to perceptions about the world and eventually, confidence. Montaigne points to a much deeper skepticism, one that does not have god to rest upon. It might be an answer to Montaigne that God could be a foundation for knowledge, Montaigne says that the foundations of knowledge must be pushed back to infinity if there is nothing firm to stand upon, but he does not mention any such objective foundation. Montaigne would say that if our perceptions are colored, then it is equally so, we cannot have any confidence at all.

3.2 To Locke, there are sets of natural rights which cannot be infringed upon by anyone, like the rights of life, liberty, and property under law. The under law part is important, when the government ceases to function for the benefit of the people, then it can be overthrown. He explains in chapter 19, that when the government is changed so that it no longer follows its original purpose and usurps the will of the people, then the people may overthrow it. Locke recommends reform over revolution, saying that the best way to do things is to reform, but if the government is not protecting rights then we would be better off in the state of nature.
If in one case, if there were an executive which failed to execute the laws, the laws would become meaningless and there would be nothing constraining the people from revolt, this is what Locke means when he says that we would be just as well off in the state of nature. Saying that a government without laws is a “mystery” and “inconsistent with human society” (Locke 56)

Hobbes has a different view, to him, once the sovereign has been rightfully established there is no real right to overthrow him. No matter what the sovereign does, it is only what the subject had already agreed to. The only time when subjects are allowed to disrespect the rights of the sovereign are those times when there is a collapse in the commonwealth and the sovereign is powerless. This means that the only time it is ok to break the social contract is when it no longer has benefits to the subject.
The differences between these two lie in the fact that there are more times when you can overthrow the government in Locke than in Hobbes. The opportunity for revolution in Hobbes is included in the set named by Locke, namely when the state fails in its basic duties, but to Hobbes this is the only opportunity.

3.3 The duty of allegiance to one’s government derives from utility, not agreement,
consent, or promise. The reason why one has a duty to obey the government (when one
does) is that such obedience maximizes society’s total utility. (36)
David Hume says that what is right and what would be to our personal advantage are ultimately the same thing. In the Treatise on Human Nature Hume, Hume asserts that the best versions of justice have their ultimate basis in self-interest, and that we are at our best when we realize this. Justice to Hue exists because it is the best option, and civil society comes into existence to enforce these norms.
Hume posits the idea of a sensible knave, who can use the ideals of justice when they want, and then use absences in the law to take advantage of others. Hume says in effect that this sensible knave is a terrible person, but not one who could not reasonably exist. So Hume is challenged by the question of whether it is better to be moral or immoral.
Hume responds both by saying that the benefits of non-knavishness are better tahn knavishness and that the knave will eventually fail, meaning ruin for the knave.
These two claims are not particularly satisfactory, the knave might or might not overreach and to the knave who succeeds, the benefits are far greater than the costs.
However, I get the feeling that Hume means that there are more than merely moral or material benefits to the knave if he stays within convention, one of the benefits to society when we do not commit crimes is an improved society, there is more peace and harmony if there are fewer crimes. Meaning that if the knave commits no crimes, then he will enjoy a better political realm to live in. This argument goes somewgat beyond the moralistic argument of Hume and resembles the categorical imperative but I think it would still be a valid response to the Humite knave.

Part 2
How do the views of Human Nature expressed in the texts we have read differ between Thomas Hobbes and David Hume?
This is a good question because it illuminates for me a great problem of these two philosophers. As I see it, Hume was working from an understanding of the English common law, which has a great deal of emphasis upon tacit agreement and precedent. On the other hand Hobbes was living during the English Civil War, he saw the institutions of his country decimated and himself exiled. Yet, from Hobbes’ tradition we inherit our political theory and from Hume’s tradition we inherit our legal tradition. So it is interesting to see and understand their differences, with a view to how this affects our (small p) politics.

According to Thomas Hobbes “Nature hath made men so equal......that....From this equality of ability, ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends”.(Hobbes 5) Hobbes believes that because of this, when we want the same thing as someone else, we come into inevitable conflict.

Hobbes also gives account that in the state of nature there is no way to gain advantage alone, because others will come to “dispossess, and deprive him”(Hobbes 6). In this state humans are doomed to lives that are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". For Hobbes, man is naturally selfish and disinterested in others well-being. Mutual contract paves the way out of the state of nature for Hobbes, who makes a strong argument for contracts. The contract is enforced by its mutual responsibility, and eventually, successive levels of contract lead to the sovereign. Until the establishment of the sovereign, prisoners’ dilemmas plague

man.

According to the Scottish philosopher David Hume “it is utterly impossible for men to remain any considerable time in that savage condition, which precedes society.” Humes human nature arises out of a rational conception of the human, Hume thinks that our reason governs our passions unlike many thinkers coming before. Hume then bases our human relations to each other in society as the development of conventions. Conventions to Hume arise out of this general tendency towards progress David Hume believed that compassion is something that comes natural for humans, and it is the thread that holds society together.
“It is only a general sense of common interest; which sense all the members of the society express to one another, and which induces them to regulate their conduct by certain rules” (Hume Treatise 5)
So according to Hume, a convention is created when everyone does something that is good for themselves and everyone else, provided that others have the same interest to do it. In class we talked about the example of the boat, which requires no agreement, just common interest and the ability to row. So while there is no explicit agreement, there is still cooperation and progress. Very different to Hobbes
I believe Hobbes and Hume had two very different views about Human Nature; however, their points of view can illuminate to us the problems that we see today. It is our government's (sovereign’s) prerogative to view us with suspicion,while it is our legal system’s prerogative to view us favorably as much as possible. Many modern tensions could perhaps be traced back to this tension in the two theories of human nature. Both traditions have had an outsize effect upon the nature of our society, but in very different ways.